Chapter 3: Settlement 3.1 This Chapter is concerned with the settlement pattern of Rutland i.e. the size, character and distribution of towns and villages. It considers the role of these settlements for the community relative to one another and attempts to categorise each, to provide some rationale for the general distribution of future development and broad guidance on the scale of development in the towns and villages of Rutland. This process in turn helps meet the aim of the Plan directed at conserving and enhancing the environment by ensuring that the amount and scale of development allowed is consistent with that of the settlement in which it occurs. In addition the concentration of development in larger settlements helps achieve the aim to minimise the number and length of journeys and contributes to the efficient use of resources and maintains the amenities and environment enjoyed by local residents. Structure Plan Guidance 3.2 The Leicestershire Structure Plan establishes the towns of Oakham and Uppingham as the main settlements in the Rutland, for housing, employment, services and leisure. 3.3 By seeking to concentrate future residential, industrial and commercial growth in these locations the Plan is acknowledging the relative importance of the two towns and ensuring development in the County is consistent with the aim of providing a realistic choice of transport. 3.4 The Plan does not provide any settlement categorisation for the villages and hamlets of Rutland. However, the 'Transport Choice' philosophy needs to be acknowledged in distributing development elsewhere. Settlement Classification 3.5 In addition to the two Market Towns, the superseded Rutland Structure Plan identified six Rural Centres, which generally comprised the larger villages. These provide a wide range of facilities and services, which also help meet the needs of nearby villages. 3.6 With regard to the rest of the villages, the Rutland Structure Plan designated the majority as Other Villages. These varied greatly in size and were characterised by a more limited range of facilities and services than in to the Rural Centres, although wide variations existed. 3.7 A number of hamlets e.g. Pilton, Thorpe by Water and Stoke Dry, which were not specifically mentioned in the Structure Plan were subject to the Countryside policies. - Page 51 -
3.8 It is considered that the Rutland Structure Plan settlement categorisation is in general soundly based. With some adjustment it forms the basis of the Settlement Policy for this Plan. 3.9 The most appropriate locations for the future growth proposed by the Leicestershire Structure Plan are considered to be the larger settlements which provide the greatest range of employment, shopping and other services. This can help ensure that the best use is made of existing resources and future investment. Such an approach is consistent with past planned growth in Rutland and the objective of providing transport choice. 3.10 The need for some growth in some of the smaller, less well served villages is nevertheless recognised. This can maintain the existing pattern of rural settlements and support and possibly improve the level of services to help preserve the vitality of the village as a local community and meet local needs. 3.11 Apart from Oakham and Uppingham, no specific amount of development is allocated in this Local Plan to any other settlement group or individual settlement, although some individual allocations are made in certain villages. The settlement classification is intended to act as a broad guide for policies and proposals contained elsewhere in this Plan, for instance the identification of land for development, having regard to environmental considerations and the practicalities of development. 3.12 The settlement classification proposed is divided into two parts, namely the Market Towns and the Villages. The latter is subdivided into Rural Centres, Restricted Growth Villages, and Restraint Villages based on the relative size of settlements and the availability of services and facilities. i) Market Towns 3.13 Oakham and Uppingham are by far the largest settlements in Rutland and both have grown considerably over recent decades. They provide a wide range of services for the surrounding rural areas including shopping facilities, regular markets and other community services. In addition, they make a significant contribution to meeting the employment needs of the locality. They also act as a focus for public transport, with Oakham in particular providing considerable opportunity for using alternative forms of transport. In accordance with strategic guidance it is proposed to concentrate future growth in these two towns to help reduce reliance on the private car. To acknowledge their traditional role it is proposed that the following are referred to as Market Towns: Oakham Uppingham 3.14 POLICY SE1 - IN THE MARKET TOWNS OF OAKHAM AND UPPINGHAM PLANNING PERMISSION WILL BE GRANTED FOR HOUSING AND EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT, AS WELL AS FOR THE PROVISION OF - Page 52 -
SHOPPING, SPORT, LEISURE AND OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES TO ACHIEVE A CONCENTRATION OF DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT NOT BEING DETRIMENTAL TO ENVIRONMENTAL, AMENITY AND HIGHWAY INTERESTS. ii) Villages 3.15 New development in rural areas should generally be located within or adjacent to existing villages. It should be noted that the policies for the villages do not presuppose growth in all settlements. The appropriate level of development will be determined in accordance with the other policies and proposals of this Plan, namely the overall provision for development, its broad distribution, the assessment of development potential and the safeguarding of the environment. However, the level and type of growth envisaged for each group of settlements is considered to be consistent with reducing reliance on the private car through, for example, maximising the potential for use of public transport and providing local employment and community facilities. Rural Centres 3.16 Rural Centres are generally the largest and best served villages in the County, acting as service and to some extent employment centres for surrounding villages. With the exception of Great Casterton all the Rural Centres are relatively large villages. Its inclusion in this category is justified given the presence of both a primary school and Casterton Community College, even though it is not particularly well served with other facilities. In general, settlements in this category possess most of the following facilities: Shops Post Office Community Hall/Centre School Health Facilities Library 3.17 Rural Centres also tend to be better served by public transport than other villages, providing links to the Market Towns and other urban areas. 3.18 The generally larger size of these villages may allow additional residential and industrial/commercial growth to be more readily assimilated, both physically and socially. This growth would in turn support the existing level of services and possibly result in an improvement. The following settlements are included as Rural Centres: Cottesmore Empingham Great Casterton Ketton Langham Ryhall Whissendine - Page 53 -
3.19 POLICY SE2 - OUTSIDE OAKHAM AND UPPINGHAM PLANNING PERMISSION WILL BE GRANTED FOR HOUSING, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, AS WELL AS LOCAL SPORTS AND OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES TO ACHIEVE A GENERAL CONCENTRATION OF PROVISION AT THE RURAL CENTRES, SUBJECT TO DEVELOPMENT NOT BEING DETRIMENTAL TO ENVIRONMENTAL, AMENITY AND HIGHWAY INTERESTS. 3.20 A number of other villages of moderate size possess a range of services and facilities including in some instances a village school. These villages include Barrowden, Edith Weston, Exton, Greetham and North Luffenham. However, given their size and character, together with the general type and/or quality of facilities available, as well as the proximity of Rural Centres or Market Towns it is considered that their inclusion as Rural Centres is not justified. Limited Growth Villages 3.21 There are a number of villages of moderate size with some facilities and services, albeit limited. The role of these settlements has tended to remain relatively static. However, they are nevertheless distinct from most of the remaining settlements and a greater potential for modest housing development can be discerned, such as groups of buildings, infill plots and changes of use of existing buildings as well as possibly small scale industry and commerce and appropriate sport and other community facilities. The following settlements are included as Limited Growth Villages: Ashwell Barrowden Belton-in-Rutland Braunston-in-Rutland Caldecott Edith Weston Essendine Exton Greetham Lyddington Manton Market Overton Morcott North Luffenham South Luffenham Wing 3.22 POLICY SE3 - PLANNING PERMISSION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN LIMITED GROWTH VILLAGES WILL BE GRANTED IF IT IS APPROPRIATE IN SCALE AND DESIGN TO ITS LOCATION AND TO THE SIZE AND CHARACTER OF THE SETTLEMENT AND WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO ENVIRONMENTAL, AMENITY AND HIGHWAY INTERESTS. 3.23 POLICY SE4 - PLANNING PERMISSION FOR INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROVISION OF LOCAL SPORT AND OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES AT LIMITED GROWTH VILLAGES WILL ONLY BE GRANTED IF APPROPRIATE TO THEIR PROPOSED LOCATION, SMALL IN SCALE AND WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO ENVIRONMENTAL, AMENITY AND HIGHWAY INTERESTS. - Page 54 -
Restraint Villages 3.24 With the exception of some hamlets to which the countryside policies apply, this group of settlements generally comprises the smallest villages. Physically they have tended to change little over recent decades, although some exceptions do exist. The level of facilities and services is very low and in some instances provision has declined. Given their generally small size new development could detract from the character and appearance of a village and prove potentially disruptive. Nevertheless, there may exceptionally be some scope for limited housing development, for example, infill plots and through the conversion of existing buildings. Very small scale industry and commerce may also be acceptable to support local employment. The following villages are included as Restraint Villages: Ayston Barleythorpe Barrow Belmesthorpe Bisbrooke Brooke Burley Clipsham Egleton Glaston Hambleton Little Casterton Lyndon Pickworth Pilton Preston Ridlington Seaton Stoke Dry Stretton Teigh Thistleton Thorpe by Water Tickencote Tinwell Tixover Toll Bar Wardley Whitwell 3.25 POLICY SE5 PLANNING PERMISSION FOR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN RESTRAINT VILLAGES WILL ONLY BE GRANTED WHERE IT IS APPROPRIATE IN SCALE AND DESIGN TO ITS LOCATION AND TO THE SIZE AND CHARACTER OF THE SETTLEMENT AND WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO ENVIRONMENTAL, AMENITY AND HIGHWAY INTERESTS. 3.26 POLICY SE6 - PLANNING PERMISSION FOR INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROVISION OF LOCAL SPORT AND OTHER COMMUNITY FACILITIES AT RESTRAINT VILLAGES WILL ONLY BE GRANTED IF APPROPRIATE TO THEIR PROPOSED LOCATION, SMALL IN SCALE AND WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO ENVIRONMENTAL, AMENITY AND HIGHWAY INTERESTS. - Page 55 -